The baitcast reel is used widely but has an inherent shortcoming called backlash, which numerous patents have attempted to address. Backlash occurs when the reel spool overruns the outgoing line, causing the line to be caught and pulled back under the rotating spool, resulting in a knotted tangle of line. Said another way, backlash happens when the length of line being paid out by the spool exceeds the length of line being pulled away from the spool.
Prior art has addressed this deficiency in three primary ways:
1. Braking Without Direct Feedback (Magnetic, Electrical, Mechanical, Centrifugal.) (see, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 321,925; 4,142,694; 4,549,703; 4,585,183; 4,674,699; 4,733,831; 4,821,975; 5,318,245; 6,086,005; 6,126,105; 6,206,311; 6,412,722).
This approach addresses the backlash problem by slowing the rotation of the reel. This is done irrespective of the actual outgoing line velocity, with a major drawback being that it effectively reduces casting distance. In spite of this braking, and regardless of the manner of its application, backlash still occurs regularly with reels employing this design. Braking of this sort is marginally effective overall only if the user of the reel customizes his casting speed and style, and also makes manual brake settings adjustments. Usually, manual “thumbing” of the reel spool is further required to eliminate backlash. In addition, changes from cast to cast in wind conditions, lure weights and lure wind profiles require continuous manual changes by the reel user to minimize backlash.
All reels currently on the market that claim to address the problem of backlash utilize some variation on braking without direct feedback, and all only marginally minimize backlash.
2. Braking with Line Tension Feedback (see, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,205,641; 4,196,871; 5,289,992; 5,749,533; 6,045,076; 6,109,555)
In theory, this approach is much more effective than braking without any line condition feedback. In practice, this method fails to eliminate the problem. Its weakness lies in the fact that extremely small changes in line tension can be indicative of very large differences in line/spool speeds. Thus it has proven very difficult to measure line tension to the level of precision required for minute feedback changes. In addition, the line tension is inherently prone to variation from factors other than outgoing line velocity. These variables include wind conditions, line friction in the rod guides, line conditions (wet, dry), line stiffness, temperature, etc. In spite of prior art dating from 1943, because of these shortcomings no reel currently on the market utilizes any form of line tension feedback.
3. Braking with Line Acceleration or Velocity Feedback
Park U.S. Pat. No. 5,833,156, Hamayasu U.S. Pat. No. 4,402,470 and Thomas U.S. Pat. No. 5,577,679 all employ some form of line acceleration or velocity feedback.
Park's primary embodiment utilizes an accelerometer attached to the line near the lure, which feeds back accelerations over time through an optical fiber in the fishing line. This data is mathematically integrated to obtain a velocity, which is compared to the spool velocity. This approach requires the complexity of a special device attached to the fishing line, as well as a special data-transferring fishing line. In addition, it measures acceleration, not velocity directly.
Thomas relies on “detectable” material in the fishing line to obtain line velocity. The drawback of this approach lies in the necessity of having available a fishing line with optic, magnetic or radioactive properties which can be sensed or detected.
Hamayasu, similarly, relies on the line having optical or magnetic properties so that photosensitive or magnetically sensitive sensors can be used to calculate outgoing line velocity.
These three patents all require a special fishing line to achieve the line velocity feedback. In addition, most prior art reels, as well as the only reel currently on the market claiming to minimize (although not prevent) backlash, the Shimano Calcutta TE/DC™, use a form of velocity feedback; that is, they measure speed rather than distance, which is inherently problematic. Velocity or acceleration is by definition a measurement over an interval of time, and the critical time interval for backlash is very small. Backlash can occur in a fraction of a second, even within the first ¼ of a second of the cast, and a speed measurement cannot yield the precise data needed to make changes 1000 times per second, since it is inherently an averaged unit. A scalar measurement at a discrete point in time would be more suitable to accurately represent the system behavior.
All prior art baitcast reels have a manual adjusting device that mechanically brakes the spool to help eliminate backlash. This brake is usually applied to the end of the spool spindle, and it impedes the rotation of the spool throughout the cast, reducing the chance of backlash by limiting the initial spool velocity and greatly reducing casting distance. Many reels call it a “cast control knob” or a “cast control cap”. Backlash would be severe in any of these reels without this adjusting device, which adds weight, complexity and cost to the reels.
So the object of eliminating backlash remains unsatisfactorily addressed by the prior art and by the marketplace.